Christians of most, if not all, denominations and subcultures would answer in one accord... THE BIBLE!

If all eternal and spiritual truth finds its home in only one book, then anything outside of this book, no matter how seemingly reasonable, must be subject to scrutiny and not be seen as a sure ‘word from God.’ This post seeks to find what this infallible source has to say for itself about itself.

The Canon of the New Testament had not been settled until The Period of Fixation (AD 367-405) where, “in his "Epistola Festalis" (A.D. 367) the illustrious Bishop of Alexandria ranks all of Origen's New Testament Antilegomena, which are identical with the deuteros, boldly inside the Canon, without noticing any of the scruples about them. Thenceforward they were formally and firmly fixed in the Alexandrian Canon.” The Catholic Church recognized that the validity of these decisions regarding the canonization of the New Testament rested on also proving that those that making the decisions had made infallible ones. The most solid way to insure this proof was to claim that those making the decisions themselves were indeed infallible.

For good graces of discussion, let’s assume that the God who penned the words through other fallible men also had the ability to make sure it would get published whether or not the men compiling ‘his’ works were infallible or not.

Biblical infallibility is truly the chief cornerstone of the Christian faith. For quite obvious reasons, this was not the case among the early church for perhaps several generations after the day of Pentecost. This cornerstone is more paramount than even the Resurrection of Jesus, for without the thrust of authority of infallibility or inerrancy, the need for faith in the unseen increases while the grounds of conscious reasoning decreases. In other words, without an outside and objective benchmark for what is true, all bases for the Christian faith would be on pure experience and human opinion alone. If we can’t be sure of the records being literal historicity and the actual ‘Word of God’ spoken through man, than what is left in a Christian’s mind for their faith to stand on apart from their own experiences? Christian authority certainly is dead apart from the authority of the scriptures. Christians, as divided in doctrinal stances as they appear to be, would barely have a shred of commonality apart from the bible. It may even be reasonable to say that Christianity as we know it would not even exist apart from the Christian bible having been compiled and asserted to be the ‘Word of God.’

It is very important to see that most, if not all, Christians today would stand to the end on the belief that no truth (especially spiritual or divine) can be known outside of the bible. I repeat the Christian claim for emphasis…

‘There is no authority for truth outside of the bible!’

Seeing, then, that the bible is the only true authority on truth that is proposed to be in the world today, there is only one source to seek an answer to the question of the Christian bible being the ‘Infallible Word of God’… the bible itself. Its declarations are certainly the only source that can be trusted. Any answer outside of this ultimate authority cannot be trusted. We cannot trust our human reasoning, testimonies of any man or woman, our own experiences, or any other organized authority of any kind. The bible is the source of reliable spiritual and divine truth.

The verses to follow are all from the New Testament for one simple reason. We are discussing Christianity and proving that the Old Testament is the ‘Word of God’ apart from proving the same for the New Testament does nothing to support Christianity.

In the following, I am only going to highlight the verses that speak of the nature or authority of the scriptures themselves. To simply quote a ‘fulfilled’ Old Testament scripture or mentioning of another declared scripture speaks not to the nature or authority about scripture itself, but simply states what the scriptures have said. The verses that follow were the only ones I could find that had anything to do with ‘scriptures’ or ‘word’ and that may aid us in discovering the truth of how we can be certain that the New Testament is the ‘Word of God.’

Let’s see what the bible has to say for itself…But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.(2 Timothy 3:14-17)

This is the most definitive verse used to waive the banner of inerrancy. At the time that this was written, however, the New Testament did not exist and it could be strongly argued that Paul was referring only to the Old Testament scriptures. To claim that this verse speaks of the entire 66 book bible that we have today would be taking this verse grossly out of context and reasonable application. One must first decide by faith that the Christian New Testament that we have today is considered to be scripture inspired by God before one can apply the declaration of this verse to it. This verse does not state that the New Testament we hold today is the inerrant or inspired word of God.

To say that scripture is ‘god-breathed’ or ‘inspired’ by God may be quite different than scripture being the ‘Word of God.’ An author named Tom is inspired by another author named Jim. The words of Tom are not inherently the words of Jim, however Jim was the source of inspiration. Adam is ‘God-breathed’ in Genesis. Does this mean that everything that Adam did, God was doing, or was it Adam, or was it both? Many preachers and writers do work under the anointing or inspiration of God. Does this mean that their very words are the words of God Himself or are they simply inspired? If they are the very words of God Himself, then we must heed the words of anyone ‘under inspiration’ as if they were spoken by God Himself. (That would become quite interesting.)

This Greek word meaning ‘god-breathed’ or ‘inspired’ is a tricky one because it is the only time it is ever used in the New Testament. However, regardless of how we interpret the word ‘inspired’, this verse does not state that the New Testament we hold today is the inerrant or inspired word of God.

To continue…For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

But the word of God grew and multiplied. (Acts 12:24)

And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. (Acts 13:44)

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: (Ephesians 6:17)

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. (1 Peter 1:23)

Though all of these verses above speak of the characteristics of the ‘word of God,’ none of them point to the New Testament being the Word of God. It would seem a stronger and more realistic argument that the ‘word of God’ is something that cannot be written down, but is an un-seeable or unspeakable force or power that stirs in life and change within an individual. This has little to do with the words on a page that are to be adhered to or words on a page that we are judged by. Though these may be seen as beautiful renditions inspired by the ‘word of God,’ no where in these verses do they claim to be the words of God themselves. They actually speak to the idea that this ‘word of God’ either is referencing the Old Testament or has nothing to do with a book at all.

Remember, also, that one must first decide by faith that these verses are the words of God before one can apply the declaration and descriptions of these verses to it. We’re still searching for where the bible, today’s only sure source of knowing God’s truth, gives us the assurance that we’re on the right path to stand by the claim of infallibility.

Another verse…For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

To apply this verse out of a book written by John to the whole of the New Testament would be taking this grossly out of context. He is surly speaking of ‘the words of the prophecy of this book.’ He is not referencing the 66 book bible we have today, but the book that he had just written. Apart from the decision to place this book at the end, for obvious reasons, we cannot assume that this verse has anything with the other 65 books of the bible.

There isn’t much, if anything, left of Christianity apart from the words in the New Testament, but according to 1 Cor. 4:20, should Christians focus so much on the written words?

For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:20)

This states it quite clearly. The kingdom of God is not in words. The kingdom of God is not found in the words in a book, but, at most, in what the words point to… the power behind the words. So, perhaps ‘the world’ should give Christians a break and not get so hung up about the bible and what it says. Maybe we should be disregarding what Christians say and start paying more attention to the power that they display because they’re living according to the kingdom principles of God. Do Christians provide the answers, solutions, and way to a powerful life that is impossible to be displayed in any other belief system or subculture? Do they display the power that would be expected from the people of the Almighty God?

In ClosingAll of the modern Christian tradition rests on the claim that the 66 books of the bible we have today are the inerrant ‘Word of God’ and that anything spoken outside of this Bible is subject to fault and error in the light of the bible’s glorious truth. No where in the 66 books is it ever declared that the Old or New Testament that we have today is the very Word of God. It would actually point that the Word of God is something other than words in a book. Since the modern Christian’s claim that their bible is the only sure way of knowing God’s perspective and will cannot even be found in the only sure source of knowing truth, then it would stand to reason that the assertion that the bible is the very ‘Word of God’ to man is simply that… an assertion that can neither be proven nor shown to be the truth by the only book that is claimed to be the only ‘Word of God’ to man.

To believe that all mankind will be judged by the words written in the bible is a belief that may be argued and supported by much reasoning and rationale. If one wants to believe by faith that it is the only inspired, actual, and literal Word of God to all mankind, than one is free to choose this belief and may even find forms of blessing for so doing. However, one cannot argue with a shred of logic or reason that the 66 book called the Christian bible declares itself to be so.

The belief of infallibility may be derived from various trains of thought. Christians, as I once was, can build grand structures of reasoning from many angles and perspectives to ‘prove’ that the book is the ‘Word of God’ as I once did, but in the end we cannot say it is because ‘the bible tells me so.’

I do realize how absurd it would for be for anyone to expect that every verse ever written in the bible is preceded by ‘Thus saith the Lord’ and even if it did, if we were to ask how we can know for sure it comes down to what they say it always comes down to. It’s a matter of ‘faith.’ The faith that is beyond the reasoning mind is the realm that Christianity values and stands firm on. If, then, it always will come down to a matter only to be understood in the faith realm apart from rational reasoning, then it would be most authentic to keep it that way. If it is not by reasoning, but by faith alone, than a Christian Apologist may be an oxymoron. According to the 'by faith' assertion, perhaps the reasoning mind only it's place for those who are coming or have come Out of Christianity.

It seems reasonable to this ex-Christian that the most effective path to winning anyone to the Christian world view is through the tools available within the Christian belief system. Many Christians would agree that faith is the most powerful thing that a Christian has. The Christian world view can only stand on faith without evidence of reason. If this faith is only by the power of God, then it would seem that the use of the reasoning mind is ultimately unreliable for a Christian to give an answer for the hope that is within them and therefore cannot really be expressed in any words. The use of words and communication requires the use of the reasoning mind. Entering into an argument of reasoning is futile and their most sure victory to win the hearts of the world is to use this faith that conquers all reasoning and believe us all into salvation.

21
comments:

I appreciate that you describe many of the above Christian positions as "Modern." Seeing as the above positions are Modern they belong to the yesterday of Christian theology.

But I'm curious as to what you have accomplished if you "debunk" Christian theological contructions that are either outdated or misrepresented. This is a general criticism of mine for many of the posts here. It seems that as a general rule there is a lack of understanding on what contemporary Chrstian scholarship is doing.

I don't think I'm referencing Liberalism or Progressivism. Liberalism is an outdated Modernist theological construction that is battled against Conservatism. I don't know what you are referring to as Progressive.

One of the first email's I dropped to John when I saw this site was regarding the term "Evangelical" as his target. My interest was how he and others on this blog felt about more contemporary lines of thinking above and beyond some of the rigid fundamentalism of yesterday.

I would answer positively to your first question. But if that is your goal then this site is less of a thinking blog and more of an anti-pop-Christianity blog, i.e. lacking substance. Is that really the goal here?

Modern, Liberalism, Conservativism, Evangelical, Fundamentalism, Contemporary, Orthodox, 'majority'.... Honestly, I'm probably not up to date on what all of the 'contemporary scholars' are doing today and frankly, it makes no difference to me nor my point of the post. Obviously, the things that I write are according to what I witnessed in the 30 years of being around Christian churches of various denominations from Lutheran to UPC Apostolic. I ran the ‘normal’ gamut.

The only point (if I didn't say it in enough different ways in the post) was that if things outside of the bible cannot be taken as to be 'from God,' then Christians (of whatever variety or taste) are contradicting their own position to believe that the New Testament caNon is the 'word of God' for all mankind and 'they' must be trusting in something else... intellectual arguement, science, tradition, reasoning, gut feel, personal experience, mint ice cream, phd.s, Nike shoes, or their local pastor...

(I can't help but notice how 'Christianity' continues to change from age to age and will continue to change and adapt as it responds, conforms, or reacts to the rest of 'the world.' Interesting...)

You asked about what is accomplished...I'm not ignorant enough to believe that any arguments will accomplish anything if made with someone not looking for something that they don't have. And if you can be argued into your faith, then you can be argued out of it, but from my observations, most of the most committed and faithful Christians don't live their faith from their head. They do it from their heart and if real change is going to manifest in anyone's life, it will have to go beyond words and arguments. There are people out there whose hearts are ready to hear something and in this blog arena, we're stuck with only words and these words are the best this simple and unscholarly man has.

Ultimately, if my posts don't change anyone, I don't really care. I gave up being attached to what anyone does because of what I have to say. You, and all of us, will hear what we hear when we hear it.

And to be even more transparent with you, I like to come hear and banter with ideas because I like to argue and to be challenged in my communication skills. I'm here for myself.

It's fascinating, to me, that so many Christians comment that we are not addressing the right Christianity. Sandalstraps thinks Evangelicalism is bunk, now Jonathan says that some kind of postmodern (emerging?) church is the one we should be focusing on.

It's almost as if there is No True Scotsman when it comes to types of Christianity. What's an atheist to do?

Precisely! The religious among us develop their morals in exactly the same way we do, from a wide variety of sources and influences. Let's assume that the Bible truly is the word of God. Then if two people interpret the same words in different ways, there must be something else in play causing them to interpret it differently. And obviously, this isn't a "good thing" for people who take the Bible as gospel, because it casts doubt onto whose interpretation is correct or if it is even possible to know what God is really saying in the first place.

I have no problem with people using the Bible as one of their spiritual and moral guidebooks through life. I consider several books and people as very influential in my life just as Christians do the Bible and Jesus. But I don't consider any of those books or people to be authoritative on everything. They are a good start, but if I don't go looking for other viewpoints as well, I'm nothing more than an ignorant pompous ass.

I think Jefferson was on to something when he wrote his own version of the Bible. He got rid of all the superstition and dogma and concentrated on the primary moral teachings of Jesus. And as society changes and we continue to learn even more about our universe, there is no reason his Bible can't be updated as well. But as long as people today are going to continue to cling to some book written a few thousand years ago by highly superstitious people who knew relatively little about the workings of our universe and claim that it is the word of God and ultimate arbiter of our moral dilemas, then I reserve the right to call them ignorant pompous asses.

Now here is a post I have to agree with. I believe we are to take good things from everywhere, books science, other people, and so forth and just try to continually eter ourselves, become a good neighbor, a community helper, learn enough about politics to vote with intelligence, the list goes on. Its interesting that alot of christianity considers anyone who rejects the bible as the sole word of God will readily read their own pastors books and consider them as equal word of God. While the bible has its purpose it was written and compiled a long time ago and by a group of people who used what they though best. Tell me how that can be considered the "Word of God"? I think it important to know our history and many of the accounts in the bible may never have actually happened, just like a person years later was much better at sports then they were in high school. Maybe thats a bad example but lets face it, they don't call them fish stories for nothing. I Don't buy that God only cared about the Jews and no one else. He would have to care about humanity as a whole to truly be a caring and just God. I don't belilieve the common christian heaven/hell belief either as only God would be able to judge a person good or bad so how can they tell me I am going to hell for MY beliefs? Another contradiction to me.

exbeliever "it's fascinating, to me, how many christians comment that we are not addressing the right christianity."yeah, ex, i've noticed that also. i guess that will always be the case since there are so many versions. i don't think it's just the denomenation factor, but individual christians don't hold still in their beliefs... i attempted to talk about that in my own blog thingy on the conundrum of faith. it is hard to hit a moving target, but christianity is evolving, and evolution is what helps ensure survival.paul

Jonathan [Jon?],As I stated, I think that it is quite difficult to "debunk" some of the more liberal and unorthodox versions of Xianity -- e.g., if Sandalstraps said that a real person named Jesus existed, and taught a way of "salvation" that more mimicked the "social gospel" idea and wasn't about a heaven/hell, and that Jesus was just a man, but we should follow this man's teachings [not that Sandalstraps does say this], I wouldn't argue with him.

I am not interested in moral arguments about whether Buddha is superior to Jesus or vice versa. I am more interested in the conventional, orthodox view of Jesus as a God/man, born of a virgin, who is going to return one day, based upon the Bible. I am more interested in presenting arguments and evidence to debunk that philosophical and theological stance.

I don't personally care if you think this makes me "lack substance". If you want to present a version of liberal/unorthodox/postmodern/whatever Xianity that you subscribe to, and how it solves the problems of Evangelical XIanity, feel free! I would love to engage with you.

In point of fact, you would be giving yet another perspective from which Evangelical Xianity is debunked, showing the solution to the problems of Evangelical Xianity are to abandon it and embrace X, where X = your "version" of Xianity. Feel free to do so. The more diversity here, the better.

I Don't buy that God only cared about the Jews and no one else. He would have to care about humanity as a whole to truly be a caring and just God.Another excellent point. Every single religion, it seems, has an "elect" factor to it -- enlightenment, heaven, nirvana, whatever, are how we separate "true believers/followers" from those "outside". This exclusionary tendency of all religions reinforces the idea that there is no universal God or universal Truth to unite us.

I don't belilieve the common christian heaven/hell belief either as only God would be able to judge a person good or bad so how can they tell me I am going to hell for MY beliefs? Another contradiction to me.

Well, I can step in here and tell you what a Xian would say -- they would say that Jesus talked about hell, and they're just telling you what Jesus said, not judging you, and that God requires perfection [why? don't ask], so "there is none good, no, not one" and "our righteousness is filthy rags", yada yada yada. APparently, their god is only capable of rendering judgment for sin, but not reward for goodness.

Infinite holiness, they say, but they ignore infinite mercy and infinite grace. God asks us to forgive our enemies, but refuses to forgive God's own enemies. Some giant hypocrite, eh?

God can do whatever he wants. Whatever is right for him, is right for him. If it appears evil, who are we to judge. It's all relative in the economy of god. We should just be good servents and not judge the creator according to our own moral judgement. We're too wicked, blind, and stupid to think that God isn't right is doing all the acts that he does that he admits are evil in his book. We should recognize that we are peons to god, shut up, and do what we're told. "Now kids... Do as I say, and not as I do. Get it! Got it! Good. And don't start thinking that you should try to have my charactor, because I don't want you just running around creating calamity. That's my job and you can only go slaughter other nations if I tell you to because you can be my puppets of wrath, but only when I say. Ok?"

Look, eventhough we don't understand, we should just swallow our evil pride that expects God to only do 'our version' of good and muster up some belief anyway.

God is the only one allowed to be a relativist. We have no say in what he decides is right for us.

A problem with your assertation is that the early church considered the voice of the apostles as scripture itself. Refer to 2Pet 3:16, where the author refers to people distorting the writings of Paul, "as they do the other Scriptures".

You have to consider that the message was an oral revelation, and the disciples believed the end of all things would occur within their lifetimes or quite shortly afterward. The letters circulated were merely correspondence that later became held in higher esteem as they realized the second coming might not be just around the corner.

But the esteem given to the books was because of their apostolic origin, not because the books themselves were to be held up as conceived documents of faith. They gained the trust they have because they were believed to be transcriptions of the apostolic word. They inherited the authority of their sources. And those sources were regarded as scripture because they were believed to be the living revelation of God.

I see, so the authority transferred from Christ to the Apostles and their authority then gave the authority to their writings.

Couple of questions, then…

1. What does ‘distorting the writings of Paul’ mean?

2. How can we trust the words of men that missed the ‘end’ by 2000 (that’s TWO THOUSAND YEARS… that’s almost ¾ of a MILLION days)? These, the very foundation of ALL Christianity said that they were at the end of time when they were only 15% away from the middle (according to the Jewish calendar that begins and the beginning of time).

3. So, because Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and was the first ‘Pope’ (according to the original catholic church out of which all modern Christianity today is spawned.), and because of his authority, him declaring that the writings of Paul were scriptures from the lips of god… that made it so?

4. How does the 'authority' of the apostles translate into the 'infallibility' of the scriptures? Does ‘authority’ equal infallibility? Peter gave the first salvation message in Acts 2, what wasn’t written that we do know however is that after this message, he could’ve very well took any straggling Gentile aside and cut off their foreskin in grand welcome into the faith. This Peter, an author chosen to pen the Word of The Creator Almighty, along with the other apostles, in all their divine wisdom and inherited authority, used a method of divination (casting lots… rolling dice) to make the final choice on who would be the other foundation stone to the church for all eternity. Can you see the church board doing this today? ‘Ok, everyone pray while we flip it…. Heads it’s Joe, Tales… it’s Dave.)

5. In regards to the 'handed down' principal, can you please let me know where this stopped, who decided it, and why? Catholics never ended the succession and when they hear from the pope, they’ve heard from God. (See the above ‘infallibility’ link in the origin post to see how they believe the church itself to be infallible. This seems reasonable if we’re asserting (not reasoning or proving) that first… god exists, second… Jesus was the starting point of god’s repented mind, and third… that the system was all laid out by the almighty.)

6. Who should I believer and WHY? The preacher says it’s because the bible says and the bible doesn’t say because the bible says. Maybe it says cause Peter and Paul says so. Peter and Paul say so ‘cause Jesus says so and how do we know that Jesus says so? Because the bible says so. How do we know that this is the bible because I read was really written by Peter and Paul? Because the church says so. Why should I believe the church? Because the bible says so. And why should I believe the bible? Because the church says so. HELP!!!!!

7. And the final and most important question of the day…. The answer to this could mean heaven or hell for all eternity…. (Drum role please) Is there a Christian in the crowd that can give a REASON for the hope that is within them so that I can understand for MYSELF why I should believe in Jesus please?

It looks as though we are beginning to find some common ground here and i am reallly trying to gain an understanding of those who are writting in here. With all the confusion surrounding the bible its no wonder there are so many religious ideas in the world. When left to ourselves without guidance, we reason out things and go with what sounds good to us. Problem is that not everyone comes to the same conclusion. While there are many similarities in all religions there are also many vast differences. If God has a foe how would be the best way to foil Gods puroses with regaurds to us-humanity? I would suggest that it is exactly what we see today, thousands of different religions al claiming to be holding the true word of God and that only they are saved. What more that foe could easily pursuade men to mix their own phylosophies with scripture to further the confusion as to what is from God and what is from John Doe. Could then he be able to convince us that God is Evil and he is Good? I would say absolutly. Even though this is a bad example I would have to pit them against each other like politicians. who can win the vote of the people? Then consider that one of them plays by the rules and the other doesn't and will take any misconception and exploit it to the fullest to win more votes. I say this becasue I believe this must happen to some degree. I am no scholar and I am just trying to figure this whole deal out myself so I realize that I may be very wrong or partly wrong or even right. with that said I would think that God would want us to know him and would know all that would come of the bible. So wouldn't want us to find a way to figure this out? Yes. If he inspired men of old then he inspires men now. He doesn't change or he ceases to become God. He would have other dealings, found in scripure, with outher people of this earth, not just the ancient jews. I don't know the exact bible location right now but I can find it if you want, it reads something like this( Not quoted) God reveals his secrets through prophets. I think it means he always meant to have a prophet on earth to be his mouthpiece. He would then communicate through this one individual things for us as a whole. We are then able to recieve personl inspiration for ourselves about our own daily lives. Now the quetions becomes if this is true, who is that Prophet today if he indeed does exist?aaron that #6 above got my head spinning man I can the confusion!

Hey maybe everyone's moved on to bigger and better posts, but I'd like my 6 questions answered by a Christian please.

Seeker, did I understand you correctly and are my questions that I asked for clarification clear. I'd really like to know who and what we should be using or following to know how God wants our lives to be structured.

Oh, and 'simple' answers that make 'common sense' would be best. I wasn't smart enough to sustain my Christian belief system. I really think I read TOO Much of the bible. And (if I may be so picky) can we not end up hitting the giam button. (god is a mystery).

I didn't move on to bigger or better posts I just can't remeber where I am commenting.#1 questionI think this still goes on today as people take what is written by any apostal and contort it their owns ways of thinking. Preaching false doctrines would be distorting the truth.#2 question I don't know if they believed they were at the end of time or at the end of their lives as we would meet our maker when we die. This is why the jews discount Christ. They were expecting the second coming before the first and his life here to them wasn't living up to the prophesies, destroying enemies and such. And maybe more importantly if these writtings were not actually those of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, maybe they really didn't believe they were at the end and that was added by the authors.#3They were already scriptures before he declared them so. Paul wrote about the church and gospel of Christ and this is considered scripture or Gods words through the mouths of men.#4 Authority does not equal infallable. Man is an infallable creature which is why we should always question what an authority figue says is of God and take it up with God personally in our prayers. Lets see, Heads I pray tails you pray. #5 The apostasyThis is when the authority to act in Gods name was taken from the earth. It then needed to be restored to us.#6The truth is out there if you want to find it. I of coarse believe I have as does every other religion so how to find it, well you have to study, seems to me like you have, and Pray to God, believing he will answer for the truth to find you.#7I know that there is a living prophet today guiding christs church here on this earth. He has seen and talked with him and has the authority to act in his name or priesthood. We once lived with our heavenly Father and we can return to live with him together with our families. Christ is the one who made this possible by overcoming both spiritual and physical death. He does live today and Guides us through the mouth of prophet and apostals as in the times of old. His true gospel has been restored to this earth along with the authority. The bible standing alone as the only scripture is not enough, there are more scriptures out there.

OK, I'll try my best to follow you here.I'm not sure what you are asking in #1 but here goes. When I pray to God I find him in the feelings inside me. I do believe he answers personal prayers.#2Profession is Electrical Mechanic, Thats what I do to earn money to support my family. For the rest I think its a little of everything, I try to balance life between profession, father, church role.As far as religion I am LDS(Mormon) and 36yrs old.Like I said I'm not 100%sure if I answered you with what you wanted so set me straight if I didn't.